> On 5 Jun 2018, at 05:05, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1:18:29 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> From: <[email protected] <>> >>> >>> Remember that the analysis I have given above is schematic, representing >>> the general progression of unitary evolution. It is not specific to any >>> particular case, or any particular number of possible outcomes for the >>> experiment. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> OK. For economy we can write, (|+>|e+> + |->|e->), where e stands for the >>> entire universe other than the particle whose spin is being measured. What >>> is the status of the interference between the terms in this superposition? >>> For a quantum superposition to make sense, there must be interference >>> between the terms in the sum. At least that's my understanding of the >>> quantum principle of superposition. But the universe excluding the particle >>> being measured seems to have no definable wave length; hence, I don't see >>> that this superposition makes any sense in how superposition is applied. >>> Would appreciate your input on this issue. TIA, AG >> >> A superposition is just a sum of vectors in Hilbert space. If these vectors >> are orthogonal there is no interference between them. Your quest for a >> wavelength in every superposition is the wrong way to look at things. >> Macroscopic objects have vanishingly small deBroglie wavelengths, but the >> can still be represented as vectors in a HIlbert space, so can still form >> superpositions. I think you are looking for absolute classicality in quantum >> phenomena -- that is impossible, by definition. >> >> Bruce >> >> If that's the case, why all the fuss about Schrodinger's cat? AG > > Is there a fuss about Schrödinger's cat? Whatever fuss there is, is not about > the possibility of a superposition of live and dead cats. It is about > choosing the correct basis in which to describe the physical situation. The > Schrödinger equation does not specify a basis, and that is its main drawback. > In fact, that observation alone is sufficient to sink the naive many-worlds > enthusiast -- he doesn't know in which basis the multiplication of worlds > occurs.
I can agree, and this applies to many popular version of Everett MW, but Everett himself clarify this problem, by showing that the relative states gives the same measure, whatever the base is chosen. Deutsch was wrong on this fora time, but then understood that there is no base problem, as the multiplication are relative (which makes the mutilverse really a multi-multiverse). I have used this in my explanation of non-locality without FTL in such a setting. Bruno > > Bruce > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
